Module 9: Cavite Mutiny

Module 9: Cavite Mutiny
I. INTRODUCTION
Questions to Ponder:
 Have you heard the term “DDS” and “yellowtards” in social media?
 Are you wondering why netizens are intensely arguing on various issues today?
 Can you perfectly identify which side is telling the truth and which is telling lie?
Throughout Philippine history, Filipinos were confronted with various

controversies and issues. Some were already settled, many are yet to understand.
History is subjective. It can be affected by the availability of resources, interpretation of
historians, and the evolution of people’s thinking. However, the conflict that you are
about to discover in this module is the contradiction of perspective among the witnesses
of the controversial Cavity mutiny in 1872. This historical controversy has two opposing
sides. On one hand was the Spanish perspective highlighting the mutiny as well-
orchestrated and extensive Filipino rebellion to overthrow Spanish colonial rule in the
islands. On the other hand, was the Filipino perspective denying the proposition of the
Spaniards and underscoring that it was just a mere mutiny of selected workers of
arsenal who were rudely affected by the abrupt and preposterous policies of Gov. Gen.
Rafael Izquierdo during that time.
II. OBJECTIVES
 Evaluate the historical situation from multiple perspectives.
 Formulate arguments base on the available information.
 Develop analytical skills in making stand on a certain issue.
III. READING
An excerpt from THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
by Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay, retrieved from http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event
and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complemented and corroborated with one other, only
that the general's report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored
out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-
payment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main reasons of the
"revolution" as to how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them
including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the
rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press
for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the
King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a
new “hari" in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the
native clergy enticed other participants by giving them a charismatic assurance that
their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of
rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report,
lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was
thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or
native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated
that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish
officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal
among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of
Intramuros.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of

Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately, participants to the
feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in
Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed
upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack
targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was
easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore.
Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the
GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation.
Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and
other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of
law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the
creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia

to instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again,
the GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving
forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.
A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher,
wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the
incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite
arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly,
Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges
of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the
founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a
cover-up for the organization of a political club.
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the

arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and
assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents
were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The
news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately
ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was
officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as
a powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native
army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native
clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that
during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive
the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction
and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by
Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire desire to maintain
power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion
of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The
decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring
teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This
improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest
for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the
past, took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a
vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying
Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to
believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or
extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life
imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were
tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and
eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event
happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he
actually witnessed.
IV. SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS (SAQ)

DIRECTIONS: Identify what is being referred to in the following statement.
_______________ 1. He is a prolific Spanish historian who documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines.
_______________ 2. He is the Governor-General of the Philippines when Cavite Mutiny
transpired.
_______________ 3. The native clergy were actively calling for this movement and
transformation which the idea was primarily originated in Spain.
_______________ 4. Izquierdo’s report was address to whom?
_______________ 5. This is Izquierdo’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.
_______________ 6. He is a Filipino scholar and researcher who wrote the Filipino
version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
_______________ 7. This is Tavera’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.
_______________ 8. The date when 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the
arsenal and residents of Cavite rose in arms.
_______________ 9. He is the leader of the 200 men conspired to assassinate the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in the Cavite arsenal.
_______________ 10. They were native clergies associated with the Cavite mutiny and
were sentenced to death through strangulation.
1. Jose Montero y Vidal

2. Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo
3. Secularization
4. King of Spain
5. Rebellion
6. Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera
7. Mutiny
8. January 20, 1872
9. Sergeant Lamadrid
10. GOMBURZA

Module 9: Cavite Mutiny

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 9: Cavite Mutiny

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 9: Cavite Mutiny

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 9: Cavite Mutiny

Throughout Philippine history, Filipinos were confronted with various

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

IV. SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS (SAQ)

1. Jose Montero y Vidal

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.